Junji Yamamoto v. U.S. Parole Commission, Junji Yamamoto v. U.S. Parole Commission U.S. Attorney General and Joseph S. Petrovsky, Warden, U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners’s Empirical Analysis
794 F.2d 1295 · 1986
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2004 · most notably Miller v. Florida (1987), 117 Wash. 2d 175 - In the Matter of Personal Restraint of Powell (2004)
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Weaver v. Graham · United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty · Dobbert v. Florida · United States v. Addonizio · Sloan v. Hicks
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a repealer of parole eligibility previously available to imprisoned offenders would clearly present the serious question under the ex post facto clause ... of whether it imposed a greater or more severe punishment than was prescribed by law at the time of the ... offense”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“for the exercise of discretion within the same statutorily imposed sentencing limits. 27 We find the federal parole guidelines cases inapposite. The courts that have upheld the retrospective application of federal parole guidelines have articulated several reasons why the ex post facto prohibition does not apply. The majority of these courts have held that the federal parole guidelines are not”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Miller v. Florida“within the meaning of the ex post facto clause. Here, we are clearly dealing with a specific legislative enactment rather than guidelines adopted by an agency. Second, and more importantly, some courts found that because the prior system of determining parole eligibility had been almost entirely discretionary, the adoption of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.